If communion with Rome is not the guarantee of orthodoxy, I find myself at a loss. There are schisms within Orthodoxy. Why should one convert to Orthodoxy as opposed to Oriental Orthodoxy? Do the Oriental Orthodox consider the other Orthodox Churches schismatic?

Please, enlighten me.

I don't think there is much to add on my part after what has been written here. I just want you to be mindful of the fact that there are those of us who don't not see it as "either EO or OO" but that wherever you go in either the EO or the OO Church, there exists the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Whereas there are those of us who will adamantly say that the other is not of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore, while you will probably want to do the research of the differences, and visit parishes for your own personal investigation, consider the option of whether you want to consider both EOs and OOs as one Church, where it won't make a difference for you, or whether you really do personally feel that you have to choose one or the other.

I've recently read a chapter of ecclesiology by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. I think reading his ecclesiological theology will help you understand why it's not so difficult for some to think that the EOs and OOs are one church. The book he wrote is "His Broken Body", and you can also read a reply he made to a Catholic priest here, outlining his errors in ecclesiological thought:

Forgive me, brethren, but I had to come out of my extreme, intergalactic hibernation when I read this. Greetings to all, whether I know you from the past or not. :-)

Welcome back my dear brother!!! how good it is to see you post again! I have been reading your previous posts and have been much edified by them.May God bless you!

In Christ,Hiwot.

May I Join you in your welcoming back of our too-long silent brother?

Indeed you may dear Aristoklis its my joy to have you with me in welcoming him

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

It's important to remember that communion with a centralized organization, and external unity, are things that you have been taught and conditioned to desire above almost all else. There are historical reasons why the church of rome has this mindset: The Donatist, Novatianist, and other major schismatic movements, the lack of any major "competing" sees in the West, and the progression of documents like Dictatus Papae and Pastor Aeternus.

So ask yourself when you feel these emotions, are they coming from that church's conditioning, or something else, or what? And then ask yourself, should you listen or not?

I am Ethiopian Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian), and I will always defend our Christological language as the purest linguistic expression of Our Lord's hypostatic nature. But I also firmly believe that there is no fundamental, actual difference in the Christology of the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Churches. We all affirm St. Cyril's Christological definition of "fully God and fully man, without separation division, or confusion." I have great hope that all Orthodox Churches will be formally united in God's due time. If you are close to a Non-Chalcedonian Church, then of course I would encourage you to enter into our ancient Faith. But if there are only Eastern Orthodox Churches close to you, then I would encourage you to enter into the Faith there. That is only my humble opinion. May God grant you wisdom and peace.

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

I also firmly believe that there is no fundamental, actual difference in the Christology of the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Churches.

What about:

"I now realize that the source of denominational church division in the West resulted from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., which divided the nature of Our Lord into two. As soon as I learned the meaning of the Ethiopic word "Tewahedo" ("Unity," "Oneness"), I recognized its significance. Satan knew that if he could deceive men into separating and dividing the nature of Our Lord, then the Christian Church would subsequently be separated, divided, and fractured into a thousand pieces."

There are many who have gone at least temporarily spiritually insane spending too much time comtemplating the EO/OO differences. They strain out gnats only to be trampled by camels. If you happen to have both near you, investigate both. Get to know EOs and OOs and their priests. Find out what actual spiritual life is like for each. If your soul is not spiritually hungry but merely wants to be right, then you are probably not proceeding from a good position. But, perhaps in one or the other or both you will find that for which your soul hungers. If so, then you will have further, more practical questions.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I also firmly believe that there is no fundamental, actual difference in the Christology of the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Churches.

What about:

"I now realize that the source of denominational church division in the West resulted from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., which divided the nature of Our Lord into two. As soon as I learned the meaning of the Ethiopic word "Tewahedo" ("Unity," "Oneness"), I recognized its significance. Satan knew that if he could deceive men into separating and dividing the nature of Our Lord, then the Christian Church would subsequently be separated, divided, and fractured into a thousand pieces."

Yes, I still believe that the erroneous Christological language at Chalcedon did indeed sow foul seeds of subsequent division. That seems pretty clear. However, as I said, I really believe that the division resulted from the language rather than any actual substantive difference. Just my opinion. I pray for unity.

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

It is important to understand that there are two ambiguities in the dogmatic traditions and not to stumble because of this.

In the Alexandrian tradition, sometimes "physis" is used to mean hypostasis and sometimes to mean ousia. Both are fine, but need to be read in context. In the Roman and Asia Minor traditions, "physis" always means "ousia."

Similarly, (but with a different word) In the Roman and Asia Minor tradition, "Word" (Logos) is sometimes used to refer to the hypostasis of the Son, and at other times is used with reference to the divine essence of the Son. Again, each is ok, so long as read correctly and in context. In the Alexandrian tradition, "Word" (Logos) almost always exclusively refers to the hypostasis (person) of the Son.

Thank you, Father. It's nice to have a good synthesis.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I just want you to be mindful of the fact that there are those of us who don't not see it as "either EO or OO" but that wherever you go in either the EO or the OO Church, there exists the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If you find an island of Orthodoxy among the ethnic and pseudoprotestant parishes, that's the main thing, in my opinion. I know many people will disagree strongly with that opinion, but that is what I feel.

That's a big thing I suffer from. I love the Greek Church in Orthodoxy and in Eastern Catholicism, but when I attend, I feel I'm a non-Greek who's out of place, though I believe either the same or close to the same thing they do. It's really uncomfortable, so I do hope you consider finding a (no offense) mixed parish with a variety of ethnicities and even families which show exactly what Orthdoxy should be, everyone's faith, not the cradle Orthodox of ethnic Romanian's faith.

No offense, again. I know that's a major bump, but I wanted to share how exactly it makes me feel. I'm new here, so I'm trying to feel my way into the forum and discussions, sorry.

Logged

"Those who fear the Lord do not disobey his words, and those who love him keep his ways."

If you find an island of Orthodoxy among the ethnic and pseudoprotestant parishes, that's the main thing, in my opinion. I know many people will disagree strongly with that opinion, but that is what I feel.

That's a big thing I suffer from. I love the Greek Church in Orthodoxy and in Eastern Catholicism, but when I attend, I feel I'm a non-Greek who's out of place, though I believe either the same or close to the same thing they do. It's really uncomfortable, so I do hope you consider finding a (no offense) mixed parish with a variety of ethnicities and even families which show exactly what Orthdoxy should be, everyone's faith, not the cradle Orthodox of ethnic Romanian's faith.

No offense, again. I know that's a major bump, but I wanted to share how exactly it makes me feel. I'm new here, so I'm trying to feel my way into the forum and discussions, sorry.

I understand what you mean Jules, it was difficult for me to get past that "cultural" aspect as well when I started going to my first Greek church. When I do go there, I still don't stay around for coffee hour -- but that's just me and my social anxiety, heheh...

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

Am I the only one who goes to a not-like-me church (culturally) and figures there is a give and take to be participated in? They already do 80% of the liturgy in English, and the non-English parts are generally repeated in English (even though they don't really need to be; translations are always provided). The Agape meal is a different story, of course, but if I want to know what is going on and I can't catch all the Arabic, I'll ask. Just like when they want to know a word in English, they'll ask me.

It's a pretty good system, I think. I'm happy where I am, even if the arguing is not my style.

Am I the only one who goes to a not-like-me church (culturally) and figures there is a give and take to be participated in? They already do 80% of the liturgy in English, and the non-English parts are generally repeated in English (even though they don't really need to be; translations are always provided). The Agape meal is a different story, of course, but if I want to know what is going on and I can't catch all the Arabic, I'll ask. Just like when they want to know a word in English, they'll ask me.

It's a pretty good system, I think. I'm happy where I am, even if the arguing is not my style.

I don't think that's the kind of issue people have meant here Demographically, there's going to be a lot of culture clash in Orthodoxy right now, that's to be expected... the issue is whether you're going to a church with a strong ethnic tie, or a culture club that has a church... if they're asking you what english words mean and you're conversing with them, that sounds like a great, health interaction. If they're asking you "why would you want to be here, this is for [insert ethnicity]", and the little church beside the big [insert ethnicity] center/reception hall is used mostly for baptisms, weddings, and funerals, then it might not be an ideal place to pursue entering into the depth of Orthodoxy if alternatives exist

Not at all. Whatever you call them, they are the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. I want to be part of the true Church... I used to be certain that was the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not so sure. I'm looking East... but not sure where to go.

Then I think there's no alternative but to look into Chalcedon. Do you agree with the Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian position? If like some of us (myself for instance) you think that both sides are effectively saying the same thing, then I think you still have to work out who you think is in schism from whom. It's messy, it's ugly and it's tragic, but if you really are in a quandary, I can't see any way of avoiding taking a good hard look at it.

James

Why do all Catholics ( by that I mean E.O , R.C and O.O) See that the church cannot exist as One in faith no matter the internal divisions?

For instance when St. Mark had his differences with St. Paul did the Christians say Are you part of the True Church of St. Mark or are you with Pauls Church??The same thing when St. Peter and Paul differed. Did not St. Paul say that we should not make the Church based on people.

Is our Faith the same or not?

I know a lot of E.O who make up stuff about the Copts and it really bothers me. They keep inventing things that we believe in which we Don't. It's time to accept that the Apostolic Church can exist despite our internal human differences.

When Joseph (the son of Jacob) was abandoned in Egypt by his brother did he stop being (Orthodox?) in his faith with God?? He was separated from his brothers... But God still saw him as Israel too. (Aka the Church).

Being Orthodox is about the Correct Apostolic Faith not just being connected to Greece, Alexandria, or Rome.. Yes the Church has its differences because man err.

To the OP - As a Coptic Orthodox I will not tell you what to Chose but I would be happy if you go either way because deep down I know both the O.O and the E.O have the same believes about the Son of God; and hold the True Apostolic Faith.

Not at all. Whatever you call them, they are the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. I want to be part of the true Church... I used to be certain that was the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not so sure. I'm looking East... but not sure where to go.

Then I think there's no alternative but to look into Chalcedon. Do you agree with the Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian position? If like some of us (myself for instance) you think that both sides are effectively saying the same thing, then I think you still have to work out who you think is in schism from whom. It's messy, it's ugly and it's tragic, but if you really are in a quandary, I can't see any way of avoiding taking a good hard look at it.

James

Why do all Catholics ( by that I mean E.O , R.C and O.O) See that the church cannot exist as One in faith no matter the internal divisions?

For instance when St. Mark had his differences with St. Paul did the Christians say Are you part of the True Church of St. Mark or are you with Pauls Church??The same thing when St. Peter and Paul differed. Did not St. Paul say that we should not make the Church based on people.

Is our Faith the same or not?

I know a lot of E.O who make up stuff about the Copts and it really bothers me. They keep inventing things that we believe in which we Don't. It's time to accept that the Apostolic Church can exist despite our internal human differences.

When Joseph (the son of Jacob) was abandoned in Egypt by his brother did he stop being (Orthodox?) in his faith with God?? He was separated from his brothers... But God still saw him as Israel too. (Aka the Church).

Being Orthodox is about the Correct Apostolic Faith not just being connected to Greece, Alexandria, or Rome.. Yes the Church has its differences because man err.

To the OP - As a Coptic Orthodox I will not tell you what to Chose but I would be happy if you go either way because deep down I know both the O.O and the E.O have the same believes about the Son of God; and hold the True Apostolic Faith.

You're not honestly saying the Latins are a part of the Church, are you?

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Yeah, as someone who left the Latin Church to join Orthodoxy, I have a real problem with that. With all due respect to my Latin friends, the Latin Church is in no way a part of the Orthodox Church. Would that it were (as it once was), but that's not reality as we've been living it for the past...many centuries.

Not at all. Whatever you call them, they are the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. I want to be part of the true Church... I used to be certain that was the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not so sure. I'm looking East... but not sure where to go.

Then I think there's no alternative but to look into Chalcedon. Do you agree with the Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian position? If like some of us (myself for instance) you think that both sides are effectively saying the same thing, then I think you still have to work out who you think is in schism from whom. It's messy, it's ugly and it's tragic, but if you really are in a quandary, I can't see any way of avoiding taking a good hard look at it.

James

Why do all Catholics ( by that I mean E.O , R.C and O.O) See that the church cannot exist as One in faith no matter the internal divisions?

For instance when St. Mark had his differences with St. Paul did the Christians say Are you part of the True Church of St. Mark or are you with Pauls Church??The same thing when St. Peter and Paul differed. Did not St. Paul say that we should not make the Church based on people.

Is our Faith the same or not?

I know a lot of E.O who make up stuff about the Copts and it really bothers me. They keep inventing things that we believe in which we Don't. It's time to accept that the Apostolic Church can exist despite our internal human differences.

When Joseph (the son of Jacob) was abandoned in Egypt by his brother did he stop being (Orthodox?) in his faith with God?? He was separated from his brothers... But God still saw him as Israel too. (Aka the Church).

Being Orthodox is about the Correct Apostolic Faith not just being connected to Greece, Alexandria, or Rome.. Yes the Church has its differences because man err.

To the OP - As a Coptic Orthodox I will not tell you what to Chose but I would be happy if you go either way because deep down I know both the O.O and the E.O have the same believes about the Son of God; and hold the True Apostolic Faith.

But what about the person in church who knows deep down in their heart that the Protestants have the same true Christian faith as us?

It is not for us to decide these things, when we do, we place ourself above the Church, rather than in obedient submission to her. This is a spiritually dangerous place to be.

St. Paul and St. Mark did not anathematize each other. This is the difference with the scenario you present. There are many disagreements between hierarchs in each Communion, but they are still in Communion. The EO and the OO are not.

Whether we agree or disagree with that position (and I, like you, think it needs to change) if we place ourselves above the Church and say that the declarations of the Church don't matter, then we are trusting in our own judgement instead of the judgement of the fathers. Who are you or I by ourselves to decide where to draw the line? EO, Catholics, Nestorians, Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists? You may say I'm being ridiculous because you know the line you're drawing after EO is right... but what about others in our Churches who know just as well that Protestants are the same too? It is not for you or I alone to draw this line, but the the Church, that is, all of us together, under the leadership of the bishops, to draw the lines together.

Not at all. Whatever you call them, they are the fruit of the Protestant Reformation. I want to be part of the true Church... I used to be certain that was the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not so sure. I'm looking East... but not sure where to go.

Then I think there's no alternative but to look into Chalcedon. Do you agree with the Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian position? If like some of us (myself for instance) you think that both sides are effectively saying the same thing, then I think you still have to work out who you think is in schism from whom. It's messy, it's ugly and it's tragic, but if you really are in a quandary, I can't see any way of avoiding taking a good hard look at it.

James

Why do all Catholics ( by that I mean E.O , R.C and O.O) See that the church cannot exist as One in faith no matter the internal divisions?

For instance when St. Mark had his differences with St. Paul did the Christians say Are you part of the True Church of St. Mark or are you with Pauls Church??The same thing when St. Peter and Paul differed. Did not St. Paul say that we should not make the Church based on people.

Is our Faith the same or not?

I know a lot of E.O who make up stuff about the Copts and it really bothers me. They keep inventing things that we believe in which we Don't. It's time to accept that the Apostolic Church can exist despite our internal human differences.

When Joseph (the son of Jacob) was abandoned in Egypt by his brother did he stop being (Orthodox?) in his faith with God?? He was separated from his brothers... But God still saw him as Israel too. (Aka the Church).

Being Orthodox is about the Correct Apostolic Faith not just being connected to Greece, Alexandria, or Rome.. Yes the Church has its differences because man err.

To the OP - As a Coptic Orthodox I will not tell you what to Chose but I would be happy if you go either way because deep down I know both the O.O and the E.O have the same believes about the Son of God; and hold the True Apostolic Faith.

You're not honestly saying the Latins are a part of the Church, are you?

No - I told the OP to choose from E.O or O.O. But I said the (E.O, O.O and Catholics) have that mindset of the Church being as I described above. Unity of dialogue and communion and not Unity of Faith. It should be the other way around. Unity should be based on Faith first then the others.

"If one says 'one nature' in the sense of unmixable and indivisible union and not in the sense of confusion, and if one says 'two natures' as being without confusion and without alteration and not meaning 'division' [then] both are within the orbit of Orthodoxy."

"Anathema to whoever says 'one nature' in such a way as to abolish Christ's flesh that is con-substantial with us, and anathema to whoever says 'two natures' in such a way as to divide the Son of God."

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

Mor Ephrem has seemingly left us again Oh well, a few more years and he'll come back again I bet!

COME BACK!!!

I came back...not only am I nursing my bruised ego over not qualifying for Pope, but I can't resist cute babies and kitty cats. :-P

Hi Ebor! Hope you and the family are well! Is the Indian parish near you the one in Silver Spring? If so, my classmate is the priest there. His name is Fr Andrew...if you visit, tell him Dn Phil sent you. You might get a second free doughnut at coffee hour. ;-)

People who want access to the private forum need to contact Fr. George and ask him for admission.

Just a reminder about the rules here: People are free to disagree with the OO's here as long as they are polite about it. You don't have to call us Orthodox, but polemics and name calling are for the private forum.